I keep reading that if you don't intend to kill or harm, you don't reap any kamma from the action. What if for example, you are very tired but decide to drive anyway, fall asleep at the wheel and kill a person? You knew it was dangerous to drive, but you didn't intend to harm anyone, so you are in the clear? This may not be the best example, but there are many other possible examples of causing great harm to others without intending it, when we could have avoided it if we had been more thoughtful. What about shady business practices due to greed which result in people's life savings being lost, though you didn't intend harm to them, you knew the business practice was wrong?

yet on the other hand:

A tapeworm is infesting you and threatening your life, but you must not kill it? -- the kamma from that is so bad it would be better to let yourself die than kill the worm? And killing a worm intentionally is worse than killing a person through negligence?

"Monks, these four types of kamma have been directly realized, verified, & made known by me. Which four? There is kamma that is dark with dark result. There is kamma that is bright with bright result. There is kamma that is dark & bright with dark & bright result. There is kamma that is neither dark nor bright with neither dark nor bright result, leading to the ending of kamma.

I conclude that my examples would indeed produce kamma, and all this talk of no kamma if no intention to harm is incorrect. We do things out of ignorance that cause harm, and even though we didn't intend to cause harm, that doesn't excuse it.

Ignorance (Avijja) is the first link or cause of the wheel of life. It clouds all right understanding.

Dependent on ignorance of the Four Noble Truths arise activities (Sankhara) — both moral and immoral. The activities whether good or bad rooted in ignorance which must necessarily have their due effects, only tend to prolong life's wandering. Nevertheless, good actions are essential to get rid of the ills of life.

This might be completely irrelevant...but I once saw a Thai forest monk (who is very well respected) accidentally swat a mozzie on his arm, thereby killing it. I must have looked quite shocked coz when he noticed me staring, he grinned and said "mai mii Cetana" (trans. No Cetana present). His mindfulness had dropped at that moment, and he swiped to scratch an itch on his arm...hence accidentally killing the mozzie that was having his meal.

EDIT: By the way, I vaguely remember reading something about a blind arahant killing ants when he stepped on them and the Buddha explaining why no kamma was involved. Anyone got a better picture?

octathlon wrote:I keep reading that if you don't intend to kill or harm, you don't reap any kamma from the action.

You do not reap the kamma of killing. As long as your action was intentional, though, there will be some sort of kamma.

What if for example, you are very tired but decide to drive anyway, fall asleep at the wheel and kill a person?

There would not be kamma for killing. But there would be kamma from deciding to drive while impaired.

there are many other possible examples of causing great harm to others without intending it

I have heard that between two people who grasp a hot iron bar, one knowing it is hot and one unknowing, the one who didn't know will be burned worse than the one who knew. I believe this simile is from the Question of King Malinda, but I'm not positive.

What about shady business practices due to greed...

Then there will be kamma due to that greed.

A tapeworm is infesting you and threatening your life, but you must not kill it?

No one said "must not". What was said that killing it will have consequences. Not killing it will also have consequences. Everything has consequences.

it would be better to let yourself die than kill the worm?

From what I understand of Buddha's teachings, yes.

And killing a worm intentionally is worse than killing a person through negligence?

Again, as I understand the teachings, yes.

What am I missing?

Possibly you are missing the long term view. Let me know if you need more explanation.

One day, Venerable Cakkhupala who was blind came to pay homage to the Buddha at the Jetavana monastery. While he was pacing up and down in meditation, he accidentally stepped on some insects. In the morning, some bhikkhus visiting him found the dead insects. They thought ill of him and reported the matter to the Buddha. When questioned by the Buddha whether they had seen Cakkhupala killing the insects, they answered in the negative.The Buddha then admonished them, "Just as you had not seen him killing, so also he had not seen those living insects. Besides, being an Arahant he had no intention of killing, and was not guilty of committing an unwholesome act.'

Recently, I was faced with this dilemma: The fixed (built-in) wooden cupboards in my kitchen were infested with termites that had already eaten sections of the woodwork. There is no way to literally trap these termites because they are inside the wood. The only way I could think of to stop their spread and damage is to use a pesticide. I did this. I felt really bad while using the pesticide and afterwards.

Last edited by Refugee on Thu Jul 15, 2010 7:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.

@Peter; Thank you; I now understand a little better about how in my examples the kamma applies to the original unwholesome acts instead of the outcomes; but using the driving-while-too-tired example, do you think there is any kammic difference in the case of the action causing an accident and death of someone, versus lucking out and no accident occurring at all? I'm not going to spend any more time worrying about it after this, but just curious as to your thoughts.

One day, Venerable Cakkhupala who was blind came to pay homage to the Buddha at the Jetavana monastery. While he was pacing up and down in meditation, he accidentally stepped on some insects. In the morning, some bhikkhus visiting him found the dead insects. They thought ill of him and reported the matter to the Buddha. When questioned by the Buddha whether they had seen Cakkhupala killing the insects, they answered in the negative.The Buddha then admonished them, "Just as you had not seen him killing, so also he had not seen those living insects. Besides, being an Arahant he had no intention of killing, and was not guilty of committing an unwholesome act.'

I do understand why kamma does not apply in this case, because 1, it is not unwholesome to pace up and down in meditation, and 2, "Besides, being an Arahant he had no intention of killing, and was not guilty of committing an unwholesome act."

octathlon wrote:using the driving-while-too-tired example, do you think there is any kammic difference in the case of the action causing an accident and death of someone, versus lucking out and no accident occurring at all?

If there were truly no difference in the mind-states in the two cases... then I can't see how the kamma would be any different. The consequences would surely be different. For example, where I live driving drunk has one criminal penalty while unintentionally killing someone while driving drunk has another , much more severe penalty. But just speaking about kamma... the Buddha teaches kamma stems from intention, period.

Well, seeing as from a Buddhist perspective human birth is very valuable, it would be better to get rid of it and take whatever bad results. I doubt that anyone but an arahant would choose do any differently.

You can try to make the Heaven tapeworm place, try to make a place with nutrients they like, things to they live on. Then when all of them get into the Heaven tapeworm place, get it out of your house and put it far away, put it on the woods.